Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

DiffRhythm+: Controllable and Flexible Full-Length Song Generation with Preference Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DiffRhythm+ claims full-length, style-controllable songs from lyrics in about ten seconds, at near-YuE quality with far less compute.

desk verdict Solid engineering with a partially circular preference-optimization evaluation; the claim of progress over previous systems outruns the paper's own human data. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12890 v2 pith:FQD3MJBL submitted 2025-07-17 eess.AS cs.SD

Huakang Chen , Yuepeng Jiang , Guobin Ma , Chunbo Hao , Shuai Wang , Jixun Yao , Ziqian Ning , Meng Meng
show 2 more authors
Jian Luan Lei Xie
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.AScs.SD
keywords lyrics-to-songgenerationfull-lengthsongdiffusionmodelflowmatchingpreferenceoptimizationmultimodalstyleconditioningMuLanembeddingsmusicaestheticsevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

DiffRhythm+ is a diffusion-based system that generates full songs — vocals and accompaniment together — directly from lyrics and a style prompt given as text, a reference audio clip, or both. The paper claims that three fixes — rebalancing and scaling up training data to 120,000 hours, replacing raw audio latents with MuLan style embeddings, and adding a preference-optimization stage — jointly raise intelligibility, musicality, arrangement complexity, and listener satisfaction over the predecessor DiffRhythm. If the claim is right, a user can go from raw lyrics to a complete, style-controlled song in about ten seconds on a single GPU, while substantially closing the quality gap with much larger autoregressive systems such as YuE.

What carries the argument

The engine is a latent diffusion transformer trained with conditional flow matching: a denoiser $v_\theta(t,y,c)$ moves samples from noise to song latents conditioned on phoneme-tokenized lyrics, a MuLan style embedding, and the diffusion timestep. The new mechanism is the preference stage, which fine-tunes this denoiser with the diffusion DPO loss of Eq. (6): for each prompt, a SongEval- or Audiobox-scored winner and loser are drawn from generated samples, filtered by a score gap of at least 0.4 and a winner score above 3, and the loss pushes the model's noise estimates closer to the winner's trajectory and away from the loser's. Multi-frame temporal perturbation also relaxes lyric-to-audio alignment so that imprecise timestamps do not force rigid phrasing.

What would settle it

Play the exact winner-loser pairs that SongEval selected (e.g., 'DiffR.+ DPO' vs. 'DiffR.+ Pretrain' outputs it rated apart by more than 0.4) to a group of listeners and ask them which they prefer; if their choices agree with SongEval no more than chance, the preference-optimization gains are an artifact of the automated scorer rather than evidence of alignment with human taste.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the main bottlenecks of full-length lyric-to-song generation — data imbalance, rigid style conditioning, and the absence of explicit preference alignment — can be fixed inside a non-autoregressive diffusion framework without sacrificing its speed advantage. Concretely, DiffRhythm+ reports a balanced 2:2:1 Chinese/English/instrumental corpus of about 120,000 hours; MuLan-based style embeddings that accept both text and reference audio; and a DPO stage whose winner-loser pairs are built from SongEval and Audiobox-aesthetic scores with a gap threshold of 0.4 and a winner floor of 3.0. The resulting model achieves a phoneme error rate of 14.85%, a KL divergence of 0.488, and an FAD of 1.835 while keeping the real-time factor at 0.036, with human listening scores above DiffRhythm and close to YuE on intelligibility, musicality, and quality.

Load-bearing premise

The premise the argument rests on is that SongEval and Audiobox-aesthetic scores are trustworthy surrogates for human listening preference, because they alone decide which outputs become DPO winners and losers and drive the headline quality improvements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Songwriters and content creators can specify genre, emotion, and instrumentation in natural language or by providing a reference track, and receive a complete song with both vocals and accompaniment in a single forward pass.
  • At a real-time factor of about 0.04, full-length songs can be generated on an RTX 4090 in around ten seconds, making interactive, iterative song creation practical.
  • The balanced training data lifts Chinese-language song quality, reducing the repetition and omission-of-lyrics failure mode that plagued the predecessor.
  • The DPO stage increases the fraction of samples rated 3–5 on SongEval from 59.5% after SFT to 81.5%, with 8 DPO epochs and a 0.4 score gap as the reported best configuration.
  • The model approaches YuE's KL/FAD numbers at a real-time factor of 0.036–0.039 versus 10.385, showing that near-YuE quality is obtainable without autoregressive decoding.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the reward signal is automated, a natural next step would be to replace or augment SongEval/Audiobox with human pairwise judgments; a small human preference set might transfer the DPO gains to dimensions these scorers underweight, such as emotional expression.
  • The same MuLan conditioning could make style transfer a direct operation — swap the reference audio while keeping the lyrics — though the paper does not test cover-song behavior explicitly.
  • The roughly 260x speed margin over YuE suggests that, if independent listening tests confirm parity, diffusion-based song generation could become the default engine for real-time interactive music tools, with autoregressive models reserved for offline high-budget production.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents DiffRhythm+, an extension of the diffusion-based full-length song generation system DiffRhythm, and claims improvements along three axes: a larger and rebalanced training corpus, multi-modal style conditioning via MuLan embeddings, and a DPO preference-optimization stage whose win/lose pairs are scored by SongEval and Audiobox-aesthetic. The paper reports objective metrics (KL, FAD, CLaMP 3, PER, RTF), aesthetic-model scores (Audiobox and SongEval), ablation results, and MOS violin plots, concluding that DiffRhythm+ substantially closes the gap with state-of-the-art open-source systems such as YuE while retaining a very low real-time factor.

Significance. If the central claims held, DiffRhythm+ would be a practically valuable contribution: an open, fast, full-length lyric-to-song model with flexible text/audio style conditioning, a large and balanced training set, and a concrete preference-alignment recipe. The paper explicitly ships audio samples and code, and the engineering effort behind the 120,000-hour data pipeline and the 1.1B-parameter DiT system is substantial. However, the significance assessment hinges entirely on whether the reported gains in SongEval/Audiobox scores and the MOS violin plots actually reflect listener satisfaction; the current evaluation design does not establish that, so the contribution is potentially useful but not yet convincingly validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III-D, Sec. IV-A, Sec. IV-D, Table II, Table III] The primary objective evidence for preference optimization is circular. SongEval and Audiobox-aesthetic scores are used to construct DPO win-lose pairs (Sec. III-D: winner score >3, gap >0.4), to filter the 25,000-hour SFT subset (Sec. IV-A), and then as the main outcome metrics in Tables II and III. Optimizing a model against a proxy and then reporting gains on that same proxy is expected behavior and does not constitute evidence of improved listener satisfaction. This concern is compounded by the fact that several SongEval authors overlap with the DiffRhythm+ author list, and by the ad-hoc linear mapping of Audiobox scores to the 1-5 scale without validation. The paper should either validate SongEval/Audiobox against human ratings in the target domain or provide independent, non-optimized evaluation metrics and human listening results with appropriate statistics.
  2. [Sec. V-A, Fig. 2, Abstract] The subjective evaluation is too thin to support the abstract's unqualified claim of "significant improvements in naturalness, arrangement complexity, and listener satisfaction over previous systems." Figure 2 is presented only as violin plots without means, confidence intervals, per-condition sample counts, or significance tests, and the text in Sec. V-A explicitly states that YuE achieves the highest MOS on all aspects. This directly contradicts the abstract's unqualified wording if YuE is counted among "previous systems." At minimum, the authors should report numeric MOS means and dispersion, run statistical significance tests, specify the number of songs and listeners per condition, and either weaken the abstract or restrict the claim to improvements over DiffRhythm.
  3. [Table III, DPO Winner block] The ablation labeled "DPO Winner: GT Winner vs Generated Winner" shows that training with self-generated, SongEval-scored winners gives a higher SongEval mean (3.19) than training with ground-truth winners (2.94). This is precisely the outcome expected if the model is optimizing the scoring function rather than human taste; it does not demonstrate that generated winners are preferable to ground-truth recordings. The result should be reframed as evidence of proxy overfitting unless accompanied by human evaluation showing that the self-generated-winner DPO model is also preferred by listeners.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III-D, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) is under-specified: the quantities N, ω(λ_n), and λ_n are not defined, and the sign of the argument inside the log-sigmoid is not derived from the preceding DPO objective. Please provide the full diffusion-DPO derivation or a precise reference to the exact form used.
  2. [Sec. IV-C, Sec. V-A] No statistical significance tests or confidence intervals are reported for any of the objective metrics or the MOS results, despite multiple comparisons across models and settings; this makes it impossible to assess whether the reported differences are reliable.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. V-A] The phrase "outperforms other baseline models in most aspects" in Sec. V-A is hard to reconcile with the same section's statement that YuE is highest on all aspects; please clarify the intended comparison set (e.g., excluding YuE) or rephrase.
  4. [Table III] The sample-count notation "33 / 32" for Chinese/English is not accompanied by the total number of songs evaluated per condition; please report the N for each block so the reader can judge the stability of the score distributions.
  5. [Abstract/Code availability] The abstract states that code is available at github.com/ASLP-lab/DiffRhythm, but that URL points to the original DiffRhythm repository rather than a DiffRhythm+ repository; please provide the correct link or clarify that only the base model's code is released.
  6. [Sec. IV-B/Sec. IV-D] The real-time-factor comparisons would be more interpretable if the paper specified the exact hardware, inference batch size, and decoding setup used for each baseline; YuE's reported RTF of 10.385 is much higher than DiffRhythm+'s 0.036, and it should be verified that the measurement protocol is identical across systems.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Preference-alignment gains are measured with the same SongEval/Audiobox scores used as DPO rewards and data filters, and SongEval is a self-authored metric, so the headline 'listener satisfaction' claim is partially circular; independent MOS is unquantified and shows YuE highest.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III-D (Win-Lose Pair Construction); Sec. IV-A (Dataset); Sec. V-B (Objective Evaluation); Table III (DPO & Training Stage)]
    "We employ specialized aesthetic metrics to conduct win-lose (xw0, xl0) pairs for preference optimization in DiffRhythm+. Specifically, we employ both SongEval [36] and Audiobox-aesthetic [37] as automated music aesthetic evaluation models to score generated songs. ... To further enhance generation quality, we apply audio quality filtering using Audiobox-aesthetic and SongEval. ... On SongEval, which captures coherence, memorability, phrasing, structure, and overall musicality, DiffRhythm+ achieves performance on par with YuE."

    The same SongEval/Audiobox scores are used three times: to construct DPO win-lose pairs (Sec. III-D, with thresholds 'score gap ... 0.4' and 'winner's score must exceed 3' in Sec. IV-D), to filter the 25,000-hour SFT set (Sec. IV-A), and as the primary objective-evaluation evidence (Table II, Table III). The Table III ablation 'DPO Winner: Generated Winner 3.19' vs 'GT Winner 2.94' shows that training on self-generated, machine-scored winners increases the same machine score; this is the metric being optimized, not an external sign of listener preference. The MOS plots in Fig.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. III-D (SongEval reliance); Sec. V-B (Objective Evaluation); Ref. [36]]
    "For song-level evaluation, we primarily rely on the recently open-sourced SongEval tool, which is specifically designed for aesthetic evaluation of songs. ... Overall, SongEval aligns more closely with subjective quality, and results affirm that DiffRhythm+ delivers strong musicality, structure, and naturalness, narrowing the gap with leading systems like YuE."

    SongEval [36] is not an external, neutral judge for this paper: its author list includes five DiffRhythm+ co-authors (Jixun Yao, Guobin Ma, Huakang Chen, Chunbo Hao, Yuepeng Jiang). The paper gives no human-correlation or independent benchmark evidence for SongEval inside the current text; it only asserts that 'SongEval aligns more closely with subjective quality.' Because SongEval is simultaneously the DPO reward, the SFT data filter, and the main Table II metric, the central claim that preference optimization improves 'listener satisfaction' is load-bearing on a self-citation whose validity is asserted rather than demonstrated here.

full rationale

Two load-bearing circularities are identified. First, the preference-optimization stage selects DPO winners and losers with SongEval and Audiobox-aesthetic (Sec. III-D; thresholds in Sec. IV-D), the same scorers filter the SFT data (Sec. IV-A), and the same scorers constitute the main objective-evaluation evidence (Table II and Table III). The DPO gain from Mean 2.86 to 3.19 is therefore the training reward increasing, not an independent sign of listener satisfaction; this is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. Second, SongEval, the primary evaluator, is authored by five co-authors of this paper, and the paper supplies no independent human-correlation evidence for it here, only the assertion that 'SongEval aligns more closely with subjective quality' (Sec. V-B), making the core preference-alignment claim load-bearing on a self-citation. These problems are partial, not total: Table I's KL, FAD, PER, and RTF are not DPO training targets, and the MOS listening test is in principle independent. However, the MOS evidence is reported only as violin plots without means, confidence intervals, sample counts, or significance tests, and Fig. 2 shows YuE highest on all three axes, leaving the abstract's unqualified 'significant improvements ... over previous systems' unsupported by the subjective data. The overall score is 7: the preference-alignment headline partially reduces to the same fitted metric, while the system's efficiency and some distribution-matching gains retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of hand-chosen hyperparameters and several domain assumptions about the reliability of automated aesthetic metrics and MuLan embeddings. No new physical or formal entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Win-lose score gap threshold = 0.4
    Section IV-D: only pairs with score gap exceeding 0.4 are retained for DPO; this choice affects which preference pairs are used.
  • Winner minimum SongEval score = 3.0 (on 1-5 scale)
    Section IV-D: the winner's score must exceed 3.0, filtering the preference set.
  • DPO beta = 2000
    Section IV-D: beta in Eq. (6) controls KL regularization; chosen by hand.
  • Data balance ratio = 2:2:1 (ZH:EN:instrumental)
    Section IV-A: balanced corpus ratio is a manual choice that the paper claims fixes repetition and omission.
  • Audiobox to SongEval linear mapping = linear 1-10 to 1-5
    Section III-D: Audiobox scores are linearly mapped to SongEval's scale for consistency; the mapping is a modeling choice.
  • Data quality filtering thresholds = not specified
    Section IV-A: thresholds are manually selected on a small subset; exact values are not given, affecting the SFT dataset.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Conditional flow matching objective (Eq. 1) is a valid generative training objective.
    Borrowed from Lipman et al. [33]; the paper relies on it without proving.
  • domain assumption MuLan embeddings capture musical style in a way that is useful for conditioning a song generator.
    Section III-B and ablations: the paper assumes MuLan's joint audio-text space transfers to full-length song generation.
  • domain assumption SongEval and Audiobox-aesthetic scores are reliable proxies for human aesthetic preference.
    Section III-D: the DPO reward is built entirely from these automated scorers; the paper asserts SongEval aligns with subjective quality but provides no human validation for the training pairs.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-generated outputs scored by automated aesthetics models are treated as 'winners' in DPO, with the assumption this improves listener satisfaction.
    Section V-C, Table III: 'Generated Winner' is used as the DPO winner, and this is claimed to align with listener preferences without human preference data.
  • domain assumption Training on a balanced, larger dataset directly reduces lyric repetition and omission observed in DiffRhythm.
    Section I and IV-A: the causal link between data balance and these artifacts is asserted, not demonstrated independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DiffRhythm+: Controllable and Flexible Full-Length Song Generation with Preference Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQD3MJBL

@misc{pith2026250712890,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DiffRhythm+: Controllable and Flexible Full-Length Song Generation with Preference Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQD3MJBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12890}
}
read the original abstract

Songs, as a central form of musical art, exemplify the richness of human intelligence and creativity. While recent advances in generative modeling have enabled notable progress in long-form song generation, current systems for full-length song synthesis still face major challenges, including data imbalance, insufficient controllability, and inconsistent musical quality. DiffRhythm, a pioneering diffusion-based model, advanced the field by generating full-length songs with expressive vocals and accompaniment. However, its performance was constrained by an unbalanced model training dataset and limited controllability over musical style, resulting in noticeable quality disparities and restricted creative flexibility. To address these limitations, we propose DiffRhythm+, an enhanced diffusion-based framework for controllable and flexible full-length song generation. DiffRhythm+ leverages a substantially expanded and balanced training dataset to mitigate issues such as repetition and omission of lyrics, while also fostering the emergence of richer musical skills and expressiveness. The framework introduces a multi-modal style conditioning strategy, enabling users to precisely specify musical styles through both descriptive text and reference audio, thereby significantly enhancing creative control and diversity. We further introduce direct performance optimization aligned with user preferences, guiding the model toward consistently preferred outputs across evaluation metrics. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DiffRhythm+ achieves significant improvements in naturalness, arrangement complexity, and listener satisfaction over previous systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12890 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Overview of the DiffRhythm+ architecture. Style descriptions are encoded by a style extractor, and lyrics are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Violin plots of MOS results for intelligibility, musicality, and quality evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Genre Bias or Aesthetic Perception? Identifying and Mitigating Shortcut Learning in Music Evaluation

    cs.SD 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SongEval's aesthetic scores are shortcut by genre (pop-centric), and a focal-loss plus group-regularized training objective measurably reduces that genre bias.

  2. MMGenre: Benchmarking Singing Voice Synthesis across Multiple Musical Genres

    cs.SD 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Current singing voice synthesis models fail to differentiate musical genres, defaulting to pop-like output regardless of input genre, unless given genre-specific fine-tuning data.

  3. JAM: A Tiny Flow-based Song Generator with Fine-grained Controllability and Aesthetic Alignment

    cs.SD 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    JAM is a 530M-parameter flow-matching song generator that adds word- and phoneme-level timing control and duration control, achieving strong lyric fidelity and musicality scores when ground-truth timings are provided.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Universality and diversity in human song,

    Samuel A Mehr, Manvir Singh, Dean Knox, Daniel M Ketter, Daniel Pickens-Jones, Stephanie Atwood, Christopher Lucas, Nori Jacoby, Alena A Egner, Erin J Hopkins, et al., “Universality and diversity in human song,” Science, vol. 366, no. 6468, pp. eaax0868, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Peter Townsend, The evolution of music through culture and science , Oxford University Press, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Bobby Owsinski, The Music Producer’s Handbook, Hal Leonard Books, an imprint of Hal Leonard Corporation, Milwaukee, WI, second edition, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Novice-ai music co-creation via ai-steering tools for deep generative models,

    Ryan Louie, Andy Coenen, Cheng Zhi Huang, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai, “Novice-ai music co-creation via ai-steering tools for deep generative models,” in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , 2020, pp. 1–13

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    A review of intelligent music generation systems,

    Lei Wang, Ziyi Zhao, Hanwei Liu, Junwei Pang, Yi Qin, and Qidi Wu, “A review of intelligent music generation systems,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 6381–6401, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Diffsinger: Singing voice synthesis via shallow diffusion mechanism,

    Jinglin Liu, Chengxi Li, Yi Ren, Feiyang Chen, and Zhou Zhao, “Diffsinger: Singing voice synthesis via shallow diffusion mechanism,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Hifisinger: Towards high-fidelity neural singing voice synthesis,

    Jiawei Chen, Xu Tan, Jian Luan, Tao Qin, and Tie-Yan Liu, “Hifisinger: Towards high-fidelity neural singing voice synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.01776, 2020

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Visinger: Variational inference with adversarial learning for end-to-end singing voice synthesis,

    Yongmao Zhang, Jian Cong, Heyang Xue, Lei Xie, Pengcheng Zhu, and Mengxiao Bi, “Visinger: Variational inference with adversarial learning for end-to-end singing voice synthesis,” in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 7237–7241

    work page 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Hiddensinger: High-quality singing voice synthesis via neural audio codec and latent diffusion models,

    Ji-Sang Hwang, Sang-Hoon Lee, and Seong-Whan Lee, “Hiddensinger: High-quality singing voice synthesis via neural audio codec and latent diffusion models,” Neural Networks, vol. 181, pp. 106762, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Toksing: Singing voice synthesis based on discrete tokens,

    Yuning Wu, Jiatong Shi, Yuxun Tang, Shan Yang, Qin Jin, et al., “Toksing: Singing voice synthesis based on discrete tokens,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08416, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Efficient neural music generation,

    Max WY Lam, Qiao Tian, Tang Li, Zongyu Yin, Siyuan Feng, Ming Tu, Yuliang Ji, Rui Xia, Mingbo Ma, Xuchen Song, et al., “Efficient neural music generation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 17450–17463, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Musicldm: Enhancing novelty in text-to-music generation using beat-synchronous mixup strategies,

    Ke Chen, Yusong Wu, Haohe Liu, Marianna Nezhurina, Taylor Berg- Kirkpatrick, and Shlomo Dubnov, “Musicldm: Enhancing novelty in text-to-music generation using beat-synchronous mixup strategies,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal ...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Musiclm: Generating music from text,

    Andrea Agostinelli, Timo I Denk, Zal ´an Borsos, Jesse Engel, Mauro Verzetti, Antoine Caillon, Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Adam Roberts, Marco Tagliasacchi, et al., “Musiclm: Generating music from text,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Text-to-song: Towards controllable music generation incorporating vocals and accompaniment,

    Zhiqing Hong, Rongjie Huang, Xize Cheng, Yongqi Wang, Ruiqi Li, Fuming You, Zhou Zhao, and Zhimeng Zhang, “Text-to-song: Towards controllable music generation incorporating vocals and accompaniment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09313 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Singsong: Generating musical accom- paniments from singing,

    Chris Donahue, Antoine Caillon, Adam Roberts, Ethan Manilow, Philippe Esling, Andrea Agostinelli, Mauro Verzetti, Ian Simon, Olivier Pietquin, Neil Zeghidour, et al., “Singsong: Generating musical accom- paniments from singing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12662 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Riffusion-stable diffusion for real- time music generation,

    Seth Forsgren and Hayk Martiros, “Riffusion-stable diffusion for real- time music generation,” URL https://riffusion. com , 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Jukebox: A generative model for music,

    Prafulla Dhariwal, Heewoo Jun, Christine Payne, Jong Wook Kim, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever, “Jukebox: A generative model for music,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00341 , 2020

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Accompanied singing voice synthesis with fully text-controlled melody,

    Ruiqi Li, Zhiqing Hong, Yongqi Wang, Lichao Zhang, Rongjie Huang, Siqi Zheng, and Zhou Zhao, “Accompanied singing voice synthesis with fully text-controlled melody,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02049 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Songcre- ator: Lyrics-based universal song generation,

    Shun Lei, Yixuan Zhou, Boshi Tang, Max WY Lam, Hangyu Liu, Jingcheng Wu, Shiyin Kang, Zhiyong Wu, Helen Meng, et al., “Songcre- ator: Lyrics-based universal song generation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 37, pp. 80107–80140, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Songgen: A single stage auto-regressive transformer for text-to-song generation,

    Zihan Liu, Shuangrui Ding, Zhixiong Zhang, Xiaoyi Dong, Pan Zhang, Yuhang Zang, Yuhang Cao, Dahua Lin, and Jiaqi Wang, “Songgen: A single stage auto-regressive transformer for text-to-song generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13128 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Yue: Scaling open foundation models for long-form music generation,

    Ruibin Yuan, Hanfeng Lin, Shuyue Guo, Ge Zhang, Jiahao Pan, Yongyi Zang, Haohe Liu, Yiming Liang, Wenye Ma, Xingjian Du, et al., “Yue: Scaling open foundation models for long-form music generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08638, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Noise2music: Text-conditioned music generation with diffusion models,

    Qingqing Huang, Daniel S Park, Tao Wang, Timo I Denk, Andy Ly, Nanxin Chen, Zhengdong Zhang, Zhishuai Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Christian Frank, et al., “Noise2music: Text-conditioned music generation with diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03917 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fast timing-conditioned latent audio diffusion,

    Zach Evans, CJ Carr, Josiah Taylor, Scott H Hawley, and Jordi Pons, “Fast timing-conditioned latent audio diffusion,” in Forty-first Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Mustango: Toward controllable text-to-music generation,

    Jan Melechovsky, Zixun Guo, Deepanway Ghosal, Navonil Majumder, Dorien Herremans, and Soujanya Poria, “Mustango: Toward controllable text-to-music generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08355 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Diffrhythm: Blazingly fast and embarrassingly simple end-to-end full-length song generation with latent diffusion,

    Ziqian Ning, Huakang Chen, Yuepeng Jiang, Chunbo Hao, Guobin Ma, Shuai Wang, Jixun Yao, and Lei Xie, “Diffrhythm: Blazingly fast and embarrassingly simple end-to-end full-length song generation with latent diffusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01183 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Mulan: A joint embedding of music audio and natural language,

    Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Joonseok Lee, Ravi Ganti, Judith Yue Li, and Daniel PW Ellis, “Mulan: A joint embedding of music audio and natural language,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12415 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Muq: Self-supervised music representation learning with mel residual vector quantization,

    Haina Zhu, Yizhi Zhou, Hangting Chen, Jianwei Yu, Ziyang Ma, Rongzhi Gu, Yi Luo, Wei Tan, and Xie Chen, “Muq: Self-supervised music representation learning with mel residual vector quantization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01108 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Music controlnet: Multiple time-varying controls for music generation,

    Shih-Lun Wu, Chris Donahue, Shinji Watanabe, and Nicholas J Bryan, “Music controlnet: Multiple time-varying controls for music generation,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 32, pp. 2692–2703, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Simple and controllable music generation,

    Jade Copet, Felix Kreuk, Itai Gat, Tal Remez, David Kant, Gabriel Synnaeve, Yossi Adi, and Alexandre D´efossez, “Simple and controllable music generation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 47704–47720, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Joint audio and symbolic conditioning for temporally controlled text-to-music generation,

    Or Tal, Alon Ziv, Itai Gat, Felix Kreuk, and Yossi Adi, “Joint audio and symbolic conditioning for temporally controlled text-to-music generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10970 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ldm-svc: Latent diffusion model based zero-shot any- to-any singing voice conversion with singer guidance,

    Shihao Chen, Yu Gu, Jie Zhang, Na Li, Rilin Chen, Liping Chen, and Lirong Dai, “Ldm-svc: Latent diffusion model based zero-shot any- to-any singing voice conversion with singer guidance,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05325, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Real- time and accurate: Zero-shot high-fidelity singing voice conversion with multi-condition flow synthesis,

    Hui Li, Hongyu Wang, Zhijin Chen, Bohan Sun, and Bo Li, “Real- time and accurate: Zero-shot high-fidelity singing voice conversion with multi-condition flow synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15093, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Flow matching for generative modeling,

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matt Le, “Flow matching for generative modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Tango 2: Aligning diffusion-based text-to-audio generations through direct preference optimization,

    Navonil Majumder, Chia-Yu Hung, Deepanway Ghosal, Wei-Ning Hsu, Rada Mihalcea, and Soujanya Poria, “Tango 2: Aligning diffusion-based text-to-audio generations through direct preference optimization,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2024...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model,

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn, “Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, pp. 53728–53741, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Songeval: A benchmark dataset for song aesthetics evaluation,

    Jixun Yao, Guobin Ma, Huixin Xue, Huakang Chen, Chunbo Hao, Yuepeng Jiang, Haohe Liu, Ruibin Yuan, Jin Xu, Wei Xue, et al., “Songeval: A benchmark dataset for song aesthetics evaluation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10793, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Audiobox: Unified audio generation with natural language prompts,

    Apoorv Vyas, Bowen Shi, Matthew Le, Andros Tjandra, Yi-Chiao Wu, Baishan Guo, Jiemin Zhang, Xinyue Zhang, Robert Adkins, William Ngan, et al., “Audiobox: Unified audio generation with natural language prompts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15821 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Songeditor: Adapting zero-shot song generation language model as a multi-task editor,

    Chenyu Yang, Shuai Wang, Hangting Chen, Jianwei Yu, Wei Tan, Rongzhi Gu, Yaoxun Xu, Yizhi Zhou, Haina Zhu, and Haizhou Li, “Songeditor: Adapting zero-shot song generation language model as a multi-task editor,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Fr \’echet audio distance: A metric for evaluating music enhancement algorithms,

    Kevin Kilgour, Mauricio Zuluaga, Dominik Roblek, and Matthew Sharifi, “Fr \’echet audio distance: A metric for evaluating music enhancement algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08466 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Clamp 3: Universal music information retrieval across unaligned modalities and unseen languages,

    Shangda Wu, Zhancheng Guo, Ruibin Yuan, Junyan Jiang, Seungheon Doh, Gus Xia, Juhan Nam, Xiaobing Li, Feng Yu, and Maosong Sun, “Clamp 3: Universal music information retrieval across unaligned modalities and unseen languages,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10362 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie- Anne Lachaux, Timoth´ee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi `ere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al., “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance,

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans, “Classifier-free diffusion guidance,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.